"We don't want to run into him in the corridors anymore. Neither in his lewd looks nor in his nosy hands" - since it has been proven that the complainants asked in real time not to work with the plaintiff and complained of harassing acts and expressions towards them, this sentence constitutes sharing the feeling that the complainant experienced, and the unpleasantness involved for her from the encounter with the plaintiff at the station. Indeed, the use of the description of "lewd looks" and "nosy hands" is not pleasant to the ear, but an examination of it in the context stated shows that it does not amount to establishing a new fact, but rather a pictorial-metaphorical description of the manner in which the complainant (who complained of repeated contact and verbal harassment) experienced the matter.
"They didn't protect our dignity when they brought a predator to the station to work with us" - the use of the word "predator" is understandable to those who watch the entire interview, as a metaphor to describe the complainant's feelings. It is clear from the statements that the complainant did not claim that the plaintiff had "devoured" her, but that the intention was rhetorical, and was intended to reflect her personal feelings and the criticism she has of the station from the situation she found herself in as a young soldier who worked alongside a civilian decades older than her and experienced disturbing contact with him. Thus, according to the criteria outlined in the case law, the use of the word "predator" in this case does not "indicate rigid facts and realistic events whose occurrence can be examined and reach an unequivocal and decisive conclusion", but rather "a message that goes beyond the plain meaning of their language, and expresses a moral opinion, for this is how a person from the community perceives and understands the matter."The case of a new contract association, at paragraph 32). See and compare: The Herzikovich case, in which a defamation suit was filed against a newspaper that described the plaintiff as a mouse. The court ruled that the image was intended to serve as an artistic means of describing the plaintiff's conduct and was not understood as an expression intended to "strip Herzikovich of his human essence and present him as a mouse" (at p. 571); See also Civil Case 1590-02-22 (Shalom B.Y.) Carmel v. Binyamin, paragraphs 29-31 (June 12, 2023) (hereinafter: the Carmel case) where it was held that the plaintiff's designation "murderer" does not amount to establishing a fact, Rather, it is an exaggerated and blatant metaphorical expression for the purpose of expressing an opinion about the actions and opinions of the plaintiff.